Re: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from the MPLS Open DT on in-stack indicators Fri, 06 August 2021 22:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D93973A1AF7; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 15:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.894
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lJv00UQ5AlUJ; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 15:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0CA93A1AF2; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 15:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id F3DE99FA8F76022B37FB; Sat, 7 Aug 2021 06:22:17 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ([]) by with SMTP id 176MMD9l099709; Sat, 7 Aug 2021 06:22:13 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from
Received: from mapi (mgapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid81; Sat, 7 Aug 2021 06:22:12 +0800 (CST)
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2021 06:22:12 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa610db614ab7eb5d0
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: 176MMD9l099709
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from the MPLS Open DT on in-stack indicators
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2021 22:22:27 -0000

Hi Loa,

many thanks to all who contributed to the text. I have a suggestion and a comment to the following sentence:

GAL/GACH will only be an OAM or instrumentation tool and will not be used to carry meta-data with user-traffic.

As I understand how GAL/G-ACh (and ACH in PWs) have been used, I think that by OAM, we mean active OAM (per RFC 7799 classification of OAM measurement methods). I believe that it would be helpful to explicitly refer here to the active OAM and differentiate from, for example, IAOM, which is classified as a hybrid OAM method.

And to my comment. In PWs, using GAL is optional in PWs, MPLS-TP, and non-MPLS-TP (RFC 6423), and ACH can be used without GAL. It has been understood that all G-ACh channel types are also applicable to PW ACH (and vice versa). Let us be mindful of that when discussing the future use of GAL/G-ACh.


Greg Mirsky

Sr. Standardization Expert
预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division


Original Mail

Sender: LoaAndersson
CC:;;DetNet Chairs;
Date: 2021/08/05 07:52
Subject: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from the MPLS Open DT on in-stack indicators

Working Group, MPLS Open DT,
The week before IETF 111 the Open DT met and agreed upon a text on  
"indicators". The terminology we use is that somewhere in the label  
stack there is an indicator tell the processing node that a specific  
packet needs a certain set of Forwarding Actions, for example some iOAM  
action might be required. To support the forwarding action there is  
often ancillary data with the packet.
The text the DT produced is about the indicators, a companion text on  
ancillary data will follow.
The text was discussed in the Joint meeting and reported to the MPLS  
working group at IETF 111. The Open DT itself can only propose, the text  
is therefore now sent out to the working group for review and consensus  
The proposed text is found at:
Please review the proposed text and comment on the MPLS wg mailing list  
We plan to keep the consensus call open until 2021-08-20.
Open DT Co-ordinator / MPLS wg co-chair
Loa Andersson                        email:
Senior MPLS Expert                
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64
mpls mailing list